Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Archival of registration forms

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:53:41 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> <t>Sometimes the requested record needs to be modified as a result of 
> discussion during the review period or due to requirements in this 
> document. The applicant, Language Subtag Reviewer, or others are free 
> to submit a modified version of the request, which will be considered 
> in lieu of the original request with the explicit approval of the 
> applicant. Such changes do not restart the two-week discussion period, 
> although an application containing the final record submitted to IANA 
> MUST appear on the list at least one week prior to the Language Subtag 
> Reviewer forwarding the record to IANA. The applicant is also free to 
> modify a rejected application with additional information and submit 
> it again; this starts a new two-week comment period.</t>

At least one week?  That will have the effect of indirectly restarting 
the review period: every comment that comes in N days before the end of 
the review period (for N < 7) that results in a change to the original 
request will cause the review period to be extended by another (7 - N) 
days.

If that is what the ietf-languages group wants, I won't argue the point, 
but I see a lot more complaints about the group's slow pace and 
indecisiveness than about registering things it shouldn't.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:29:24 +0900

>At least one week?  That will have the effect of indirectly restarting the review period: every comment that comes in N days before the end of the review period (for N < 7) that results in a change to the original request will cause the review period to be extended by another (7 - N) days.

Yes, that's the intention. The issue is that if something new comes
up, even if it looks like everybody agrees on the spot, it's better
to give it a bit of time.

>If that is what the ietf-languages group wants, I won't argue the point, but I see a lot more complaints about the group's slow pace and indecisiveness than about registering things it shouldn't.

My understanding is that indecisiveness doesn't happen because
there are ongoing little tweaks that don't converge, but mainly
because a) there are strongly opposing opinions, or b) because
peolple don't care too much either way, or c) because nobody has
enough time.

One other way to address issues is to at some point just say
"the one we had already one week ago is good enough, if you want
to change it again, please submit another request". Of course,
that only works for changeable fields.

Anyway, that's the intention behind what Addison wrote (or my
interpretation of it), but I'm not totally attached to it.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:18:24 -0700

> request will cause the review period to be extended by another (7 - N) 

I had to pick a time period. A time period of less than 48 hours doesn't 
permit people time to respond (especially if the 48 hours fall on a 
weekend or national holiday). So I chose a week as a convenient time period.

I note that this does not restart the time period for review and 
approval. The LSR can approve the record at any time (provided two-weeks 
have elapsed), but he cannot forward the record until the 7 days have 
elapsed for the final record.

And note that it is only the FINAL record that matters for the one week 
measure. The applicant is free to send a new record every day for the 
first week of the review period without causing any change in the 
registration schedule at all.

> indecisiveness than about registering things it shouldn't.

The ietf-languages list is rather too efficient at registering subtags, 
in my opinion. The slow pace, indecisiveness, lack of discipline, and 
general opacity of the process is an artifact, in my opinion, of how the 
list and process are managed. Nonetheless, we have to hand quite a list 
of examples of "register quickly" (under a month) followed by "repent 
forever".

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:11:32 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> The ietf-languages list is rather too efficient at registering 
> subtags, in my opinion. The slow pace, indecisiveness, lack of 
> discipline, and general opacity of the process is an artifact, in my 
> opinion, of how the list and process are managed. Nonetheless, we have 
> to hand quite a list of examples of "register quickly" (under a month) 
> followed by "repent forever".

How many "repent forever" subtags would you say we currently have?